Monday, March 27, 2017

Getty Images gets after white men

I'm doing a little work on a textbook. The publisher has free access to istockphoto.com, a service I hadn't previously heard of but provides images similar to the Shutterstock pictures you've probably seen included in various online articles and the like.

I was looking for an image of a shoplifter for one of the modules I was finishing up. On the first page of results, containing 59 images, I noticed not a single perpetrator was black. I went through the other four pages of results, all of which were similarly completely devoid of black perps. I literally found a thieving pig before I was able to find a black filcher!

I scanned the first page of results, around 60 per, for other criminal search terms. Some images only showed victims or no people at all. Among those that did include perpetrators, the percentage distributions are as follows.

15 comments:

This does not surprise me at all. I have taken to buying all generic brands. I will not use any name brand products as even White owned Corporations are Blatantly Attacking the White Race. They best pray I never find them in Public,they will Not survive the Assault.

This does not surprise me at all. I have taken to buying all generic brands. I will not use any name brand products as even White owned Corporations are Blatantly Attacking the White Race. They best pray I never find them in Public,they will Not survive the Assault.

Black males were the most likely to be shown in a committed relationship (68.4%). Further, White (58.1%) and Hispanic (57.1%) males were more likely than “Other” males (37.5%) to be depicted as boyfriends or spouses. Asian males were the least likely to be depicted in a romantic relationship (28.6%)

Because when we think of Black males what immediately comes to mind is "Man, those guys sure love to commit to their women, not like those Asian dudes who are prone to love them and leave them.

I typed 'family' into ShutterStock and also got overwhelmingly white families. Interpret that as you will. Tried it again at Getty and got overwhelmingly white and some Asian results.

Off topic, I just heard, on the radio while driving, the most amazingly patriotic speech defending a right for a people to a homeland that I have ever heard. I heard how a people should have a right to a homeland that reflects their identity and that any wrongs committed by their nation in defense of its people and its faith are a small matter when the safety and identity of the nation is at stake. This amazing patriot was none other than Paul Ryan. He showed deep and thoughtful understanding of the need for a people to have a nation that reflects them and that their nation deserves to always maintain its identity. Only one fly in the ointment... care to guess?

At least when I type "black family" I get pictures of black families. It's hell trying to find an image of an unfavorable picture of a NAM even when it's specified in the search.

That's a little surprising wrt to Paul Ryan, not because of how he feels but because of how Trump has made the "hey, the US just wants to do what Israel does" argument several times over the last couple of years.

Ryan should never be trusted.

Anon,

I was going to joke that maybe blacks should complain about these results--all the model/acting work is going to whites. Thanks for more-or-less making it for me!

We have a Stock Photos tag on VDARE.com, in which cases about a specific black criminal will be illustrated with white hands in handcuffs, a black criminal trying to rob a gun store with a baseball bat illustrated with a picture of a white guy with a bat, et cetera.

I have a feeling that some of the news editors doing this actually think that the "Chicago man" or whoever in the wire story is white.

"And then there's the gangs who terrorize Detroit in the Robocop films. If memory serves, not a single one of the villains was black."

One of them was black, another Southeast Asian. In the 70's and especially 80's, a lot of mainstream movies about street crime were often reluctant to depict all-black gangs, I think for several reasons:

- PC, obviously

- Marketing concerns (Paramount insisted that white actors be cast in '79's The Warriors because they thought the white audience was not interested in a movie about black/brown criminals).

- When Carter and especially Reagan were president, people were anxious to move on from the tumult of the 60's and early 70's. Studios didn't want the entertainment of the time to remind people of the most uncomfortably embarrassing Sixties legacy: out of control black crime.

- Generational demographic shifts. When G. Bush became president in the very late 80's, the audience had become heavily Gen X. Gen X-ers had little to no memory of The Sixties, so more accurate portrayals of criminals were not embarrassing to them. After all, X-ers were born into a world in which major changes had been wrought by the 3 preceding generations. So we started to get a lot of "urban" films around 1989 or so which didn't feel the same need to fudge demographic realities. Also, Boomers seemed to idealize the possibility that one day race relations would be positive enough that even criminals would be integrated. Meanwhile, in the ostensibly PC/Pro-black environment of the 90's (culturally, about 1989-1997), white X-ers may have developed a fetish for black culture but it didn't bother them too much to not see whites on screen.